Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness

An M.I.T. trained scientist takes a look at Darwin, the fossil record, and the likelihood of random evolution.

At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic assumptions: that changes in morphologies are induced by random mutations on the genome, and that these changes in the morphology of plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the competition to survive.

With nature doing the selection, evolutionists claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process. We are told that the selection is in no way random. It is a function of the environment. The randomness, however, remains as the basic driving force that produces the varied mutations from among which the selection by survival takes place.

The question is: Can random mutations produce the evolution of life?

Because evolution is primarily a study of the history of life, statistical analyses of evolution are plagued by having to assume the many conditions that were extant during those long gone eras. Rates of mutations, the contents of the "original DNA," and environmental conditions – all these affect the rate and direction of the changes in morphology. And these are all unknowns.

From a secular view, one must never ask what the likelihood is that a specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal. This would imply a direction to evolution, and basic to all Darwinian theories of evolution is the assumption that evolution has no direction. The induced changes, and hence the new morphologies, are totally random. The challenges presented by the environment determine which will survive to produce the new generations and which will perish.

Protein Combinations

With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At an event recorded in the fossil record and known as the Cambrian explosion of animal life, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly and simultaneously appeared in the fossil record. This is the first appearance of complex animal life. Only 30 to 34 of the phyla survived. The rest perished.

Since then the fossil record and modern existing biota reveal that no new phyla have evolved. At a later stage in the flow of life, a catastrophic event (possibly the collision of the earth with a massive comet or meteor) eliminated 90% of all life forms. The ecology was wide open for new phyla to develop. Again, no new phyla appear. The implication is that only a limited number of life forms (phyla) are viable.

It is no wonder that the most widely read science journal, Scientific American, asked "has the mechanism of evolution altered in ways that prevent fundamental changes in body plans of animals" (November 1992). It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed; it is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change to fit the data presented by the fossil record and by the discoveries of molecular biology.

Pure randomness as the source of the mutations no longer stands against mounting evidence of scientific data.

It is difficult and painful to discard entrenched notions of what is actually true, even when scientific data demand such an abandonment. Pure randomness as the source of the mutations that neo-Darwinian concepts demand to drive the evolution of life no longer stands against the mounting evidence of scientific data. Unfortunately, the emotional commitment to a totally materialist view of life makes discarding this notion problematic.

Let's look at the likelihood that random mutations could have produced viable forms of life. Life as we know it is built largely of combinations of proteins working in symbiotic harmony. But as we've seen, only certain combinations produce viable life. Other combinations fail.

Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 to 100,000 proteins active in mammalian bodies. It is estimated that there are some 30 animal phyla on Earth. If the genomes of each animal phylum produced 100,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the phyla (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 x 100,000) 3 million proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower.)

Now let's consider the likelihood of these 3 million viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that the events following the Cambrian explosion of animal life and the later decimation of 90% of life taught us that only certain combinations of proteins are viable.

Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids that join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices!

Simon Conway Morris, professor of evolutionary paleontology at the University of Cambridge and fellow of the Royal Society of England, is the scientist who revealed the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life. He refers to this vast biological waste land of failed life forms as the "multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality."

Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion non-viable proteins – and pulled out the one that worked.

And then repeated this trick a million times.

With odds like that, it is amazing that nature and our bodies ever got it or get it right.

But perhaps not every amino acid can join with every other amino acid. If this is the case, then the number of possible combinations will be reduced. To get even hint for what this would do to the hyperspace of failed choices, I looked at combinations of amino acids that actually exist in just six proteins. Among the proteins I used were bovine insulin and bovine ribonuclease. The number of potential amino acid combinations just from this modest sampling of proteins was 10 to the power of 20. Again, nature would have had to select the one viable combination from among 100 billion billion wrong choices. Either our knowledge of statistical probability is skewed or something other than randomness is operating.

The late Harvard professor, Stephen Jay Gould, suggested that the flow of life is "channeled" along these basic animal phyla.

Nobel laureate, organic chemist and a leader in origin of life studies, Professor deDuve writes in his excellent book, Tour of a Living Cell, "If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one... Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe." Life written into the fabric of the universe sounds a bit metaphysical.

Morris, in his book Life's Solutions (Cambridge University Press, 2003), writes: "Life is simply too complex to be assembled on any believable time scale... evolution's uncanny ability to find the short cuts across the multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality. It is my suspicion that research might reveal a deeper fabric to biology..." Elsewhere Morris identifies this "deeper fabric" as having "metaphysical implications."

This impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from the attempt to produce Shakespeare or any meaningful string of letters more than a few words in length by a random letter generator. Gibberish is always the result. This is simply because the number of meaningless letter combinations vastly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations.

With life, such gibberish was and is lethal.

In brief, randomness cannot have been the driving force behind the success of life. Our understanding of statistics and molecular biology clearly supports the notion that there must have been a direction and a Director behind the success of life.

About the Author

Dr. Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and double-Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics and Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught physics for seven years. While a consultant at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission he participated in the formulation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties with the former Soviet Union and witnessed the testing of six atomic bombs. He has served as a consultant to various governments worldwide and has been published in Time, Newsweek and Scientific American. He is the author of Genesis and the Big Bang, the discovery of harmony between modern science and the Bible, now in seven languages. He is also the author of The Science of God and The Hidden Face of God. Dr. Schroeder is currently a lecturer at Aish Jerusalem for the Discovery Seminar, Essentials program, Jerusalem Fellowships, and Executive Learning Center ― focusing on the topics of evolution, cosmology, and age of the universe.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 33

(27)
Andi Ziegelman,
December 8, 2016 5:11 PM

Very happy to read this article by Gerald Schroder

Thanks, Gerald, and thanks AISH! I've been wanting to hear your take on evolution ever since I once glimpsed a book that you wrote in a bookstore.And warm regards to Barbara Sofer!Shabbat shalom, Andi Alpert Ziegelman, Haifa

(26)
ray,
August 19, 2014 7:57 PM

well said

it would add to his argument that the total number of organisms that ever lived on the planet is only about 10^40 source: http://dafyomireview.com/chovos/jewish_views_on_evolution.htm

(25)
AWasExcited,
April 19, 2014 5:59 PM

ReadCriticismToo

Read Criticisms Too Please!

Unfortunately, I saw Dr. Schroeder's articles and got very excited, but you should read the reviews by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb and Yoram Bogacz of Genesis and the Big Bang before you get too excited by his theories :( Many of his arguments don't hold up in Torah interpretation, Sources, Physics and Evolution.

I post this comment because I got very excited by this article only to be disappointed when it was picked apart by other Jewish scholars. It's not all wrong, but be skeptical of this rationalist argument. There are other, sounder, proofs of the Torah.

(24)
Beverly Kurtin,
March 18, 2013 11:00 PM

What is a scientific theory?

As a scientist, whenever I hear someone say that the Theory of Evolution is "only a theory" I get the urge to scream! They have no idea of how a theory becomes a scientific theory. Before anything else happens, an individual gets a spark of an idea that becomes a hypothesis. After long periods of proving the hypothesis it is either accepted and become a scientific theory. But even that does not slam the door; it remains open for further investigation.Personally, I feel that Darwin got it right.

(23)
Leslie,
January 3, 2011 8:04 AM

Lottery winners

The odds against winning the lottery are *huge* therefore when someone wins it drawing was rigged by the "Director"
Silly argument.
@nathan
You probably have no data your "untold trillion years" but if you did the fault would be running the experiment 1 by 1.
The insanely huge odds against life are not so insane when you consider that these combinations are happening con-currently. Not 1 by 1 in a single tiny space.
And losers of this lottery are also on other planets, solar systems, galaxies.
We are in a medium sized galaxy with 200 BILLION stars. The odds are being run on all of them for life.
Oh, and there are 100s of billions of galaxies too.

Anonymous,
March 2, 2012 3:05 AM

Someone has to win the lottery.

In a lottery, someone will always win it. Not so in evolution.
And even if it were so, You have forgotten a few of Schroeder's facts. There's a difference between a one in ten thousand chance that a particular person will win, versus a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion to one chances against a particular protein getting created. Now say the odds are to 3 million that any viable protein is made. Thats still 333 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion to one chances against. Then repeat that a couple million times till you get the first cell. All before the first few proteins die of old age a thousand times over. No matter where in the universe you try that, at the same time as each other, it's still too unlikely. Factor in the complexity of the cell needed to get accurate replication and a genetic code to replicate, and no matter how many cells were created by chance, as soon as they die, they're gone. The odds against them reproducing are even more astronomical. There are certainly hundreds more factors I don't even know of that make the odds even worse, before you get to actual organisms.
(some extra arguments taken from creationsafaris.com, but the bulk of my argument comes from this very article. maybe you should reread it)

non conspiracy,
May 13, 2014 12:13 PM

The other planets aren't stable for life genius and by the way where did you get this idea from that god made factories producing trillions of chemical can concoctions on all the planets which religion is that from

think straight,
May 15, 2014 9:36 PM

If the brother of the lottery directorwins 1 billion times in a row you'd say it was a coincidence? I can't believe bias is so powerful it can actually make someone believe in the analogy you made the results of the lottery are random where as by creation it always fulfills the preexisting conditions of being living, sustainable, reproducible and most importantly coherent that's why by something not near as complex that even man has the ability to make such as a car you always know has a designer. By the way all of the billions of different living things we know are living together in a complex interactive system on 1 planet.

(22)
David,
October 26, 2010 10:27 PM

"Randomness" equals noise in the system

To quote from an article written by Mr. Perry Marshall (www.cosmicfingerprints.com) randomness in any system is equivalent to noise in the system and noise ALWAYS degrades, never does it build.

(21)
gavriel,
April 14, 2010 9:59 PM

If it's true, reproduce it

The best proof in science is being able to replicate the hypothesis. As yet, no one has been able to randomly create the necessary amino acids to support life. Similarly, no one has yet used selective breeding or induced mutations to create a new reproducing species.

seba,
October 24, 2012 5:09 PM

zzz

Scientists actually reproducing it, in bacterias and other basic life forms. Obviously you can't do it with mammals, or any other animals because of time frame of evolution.

Dim,
January 19, 2013 7:47 AM

Scientists?

The same people who yelled the Universe is eternal some 60 years ago?

(20)
Jason,
November 6, 2009 12:04 AM

I'm sorry Aish and Dr. Schroeder, but wrong side of the fence

I have to say, you are on the wrong side of the fence here. There is no contradiction between God creating man and the species and evolution. The point is that God works through nature. And if Judaism doesn't necessarily conflict with science, why are you taking a side on this? Evolution is so universally accepted by the most acclaimed scientists. I am an engineer and have not studied it on even the level of Dr. Schroeder, but by closing doors on scientific thought, you risk alienating any and all scientists. Just to make sure I'm clear, we're talking *overwhelming* scientific consensus on this (scientist defined as having published at least 1 peer reviewed article).

Eli Schwartz,
March 2, 2012 2:44 AM

They're on the same side as you.

Stop arguing with the converted. If you'd ever read Schroeder's famous book The Science of God, you might know his positions. All he's said here is, by random chance alone, evolution fails utterly. And his book is based on the premise that God most likely did use evolution as the means to create life. Because science is flawed by our own misunderstanding, and God knew all when He wrote the bible, we eventually find by means of Schroeder's explanation, and perhaps others, that science (meaning the way the world works according to natural laws, not just the scientific facts discovered SO FAR) that both are saying the same thing. It is a central tenet of Jewish faith that God controls and directs nature on a constant basis. Ever heard of "hidden miracles?" Natural life is simply the greatest of all hidden miracles.

(19)
Doctor,
March 25, 2009 9:00 AM

The Missing Factor in this Argument

Randomly came across this - and this whole long essay has one major flaw - when you talk about the 10 to the power of 260 argument - you are missing the entire point of randomness and evolution - what has resulted is just ONE POSSIBILITY that just happened to work - this is not to say - and certainly is not the IDEAL combination of randomness, etc... This is just how the rolled dice came up - and the CAME UP... Sure, there could be a trillion other combinations but a billion of those also would create viable life - and probably 1000x smarter than we are...

(18)
nathan,
September 6, 2007 2:27 PM

there is not enough time in our universe.

but if life did randomly form, it would take untold trillions of years or more, and not just the 4 or 5 billion years that the earth has been here?

(17)
Dr. Jose Nigrin,
December 2, 2005 12:00 AM

the unnamed cause

Even if randomness could have happened, this causal fact was from god, or whatever name to genesis you give.

(16)
Joe,
December 1, 2005 12:00 AM

a clarifying response

Sir,
There are many things in your response which I feel need to be adressed. We seem to have narrowed our discussion to the origin of the first replicator. From what I understand of your argument, you seem to be saying: Basic biogical protiens are very complex. The odds of something that complicated happening randomly are
incredibly small. I figure this by looking at the possible combinations of the amino acids. There is no way enough possible shots at such a small target could have been fired to score a "hit" randomly. Therefore this is scientific proof of Hashem's direct physical agency.

My response was to challenge some of the steps in your analysis. I am arguing that it is quite possible enough shots were fired on the one hand, and that the mathematical combinations argument simply does not apply to subsequent generations, and thus can not be applied to the human genome.

In other words, he's saying the odds of this happening randomly are vastly worse than hitting the lottery. This is true. I am saying that the Earth - and the universe had enough lottery tickets to make the odds of "winning" likely.

First, the whole universe argument. It is true we have not yet observed another Earthlike planet. But as you point out our own perfectly ordinary, yellow sun managed to have nine planets. It seems odd to assume

that all of the other perfectly

ordinary stars in the main sequence have no planets. And of course, we *have* observed numerous large extra solar planets. I do not believe it likely, that in the *whole* universe, our sun was the only star blessed with rocky planets in the liquid water zone.

Or that given all of the organic chemicals that have been observed in comets, they would not have the same materials to work with.

But, let's say that you are correct for the moment. You take me to task for offering a large possibility that has not yet been observed. I will restrict my discussion to the
Earth. In its early days, how big were
the oceans? How many mols (as in Avogadro) of organic chemicals were swirling around in them? In the early seas, how many possible chemical reactions could have occured in just one second? How many years was
that soup "cooking" for before the first replicator arose? And remeber we only need one. Once it crops up, it does its thing, makes lots of itself and is subject to mutation. The whole mechanism of Evolution kicks in.

Now I am not a paleo-biologist, and the exact composition of the early oceans is not known, but it does not at all seem compelling to me to argue that the oceans were so small, the concentrations of chemicals
were so small, the reaction rates were

so slow, and the time was so short, that there were not a sufficient number of tries to get that first "hit" randomly - or that

we have just proved anything.

As to the three billion years, that was a typo. I meant 4,000,000,0000. As you point out, the earliest bacterial fossils seem
to have cropped up very early in Earth's history. That would indicate to me that if you have the right planetary mix, (initial conditions) the chance of a replicator arising naturally is actually quite large.

As to why would they want to replicate? You seem to implying that Hashem made them want to.

It is not clear that the simple life forms, that lack brains or nervous systems, want anything. A virus is very complicated by molecular standards, but it is also just a "spring loaded" replicator.

Give it a cell, and its little machinery sets to work. We do not need to invoke anything greater than chemistry and physics. I doubt it thinks much about it at all.

More to the point, while the complexity of a virus may (and should) give a certain awe for creation, the fact that it replicates does not constitute proof of any sort of will, or any sort of *direct* evidence
for Hashem's hand at work. It does
what it does. Apples fall down when you drop them, too. If you wish to quibble about just how comlex a virus is, consider prions, the cause of mad cow disease. They really are just big molecules - and they manage to replicate too. If you will they are just very complicated poisons.

My points about simple organisms surviving mutation are to demonstrate that there is both a robust and fast mechanism for tremendous variation in simple life forms, hence you get a lot of "tries" very quickly.

I wish to be clear. I am not questioning Hashem. I am questioning the notion of this debate constituting proof in a scientific sense of Hashem's physical agency. More-over, given that Hashem gives us free will, it is not clear that He would ever let us find such proof.

As to once the replicator gets going. We can not use a simple cominatorial argument at all. Replicators do thier copying mostly right. Mutations are, by definition, when something is different in the copy - and
for sure they arise, but they are
deviations from a parent that was already in existence. Therefore, and emphatically, it is incorrect to assume that you have the whole set of (possible combinations -1) other combinations of codons availible.
Finally, it is true that we do not know exactly how the first replicator arose. Specifically, we do not know the initial conditions of the early Earth. It is not appropriate to jump from "I don't know" to "here
is physical proof of Hashem's
agency." That is completely not kosher science.
Thank You

(15)
Jack Lauber PE,
November 30, 2005 12:00 AM

excellent, reasoning for the existence of an intelligent designer of life, G-d

Dr. Schroeder has made the important case for intelligent design of life. However this article can be revised to make it more understandable by the lay audience.

(14)
Hannu Ahtola,
November 29, 2005 12:00 AM

Sciene and faith

Scientific research and theories (evolution included) are about the laws of nature and their workings. Science has no means to study God.

But "laws of nature" must have some origin. I believe, they are made by God, but that is faith, not science.

(13)
Ben Kaplan,
November 29, 2005 12:00 AM

Evolution vs Randomness

Dr. Schroeder:
Your research and conclusions clearly offer those of us who believe in a supreme being an added degree of rational support whenever there is a discussion with others.

(12)
Al,
November 29, 2005 12:00 AM

Evolution can no longer be dismissed

I will not pretend to understand the statistics and probabilities of biological mutation but the vast amount of evidence that supports evolutionary science can no longer be dismissed. The fact that each of us is here is based on random selection or a million to one chance.
Creationist will tell us that the reason each of us are here is part of a creators plan but this is supported by faith and not facts.
Evolution is not something that happened many years ago but is something that is happening all around us today. Scientist will be the first to tell us that there are many things that we don't know and that there are many gaps surrounding the theories but the underlying fact that all creatures evolved and continue to evolve today is undeniable.

(11)
Anonymous,
November 29, 2005 12:00 AM

excellent article

thank you for the informative article.
would like to see more science articles on this site. believe it or not, many people are interested.

(10)
John, Jane & Miriam,
November 29, 2005 12:00 AM

Schroeder misunderstands probability.

Please read Dr. Mark Perakh' critique of your work in his book Unintelligent
Design. You are making a common error
in the understanding of probability.
Respond to his remarks, if you are able.

(9)
Harry Friedman,
November 28, 2005 12:00 AM

What's the alternative?

Not sure I understand the statistics, but evolution surely works because each mutation starts from the existing organism within its existing environment. The possibilities are greatly reduced. Nothing starts from scratch. However, if Dr Schroeder has a better explanation than Darwin's let's have it!

(8)
Adam Neira,
November 28, 2005 12:00 AM

The Process of Unfolding Potential

"There is no chance in the universe. Only gradation and order."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

(7)
David Travers,
November 28, 2005 12:00 AM

It's the best they've got

Someone once described democracy as a lousy system of government but it's the best we've got. By the same token one could say that Darwin's theory of Evolution is a lousy theory but it's the best they've (the scientific establishment) got, short of having to admit they have no real idea how we or any other life got here without introducing God. As theories go it really is pretty useless. It cannot be proved, it relies on too many assumptions, and it is a self-fulfilling theory.

(6)
Joe,
November 28, 2005 12:00 AM

reprint of first post.

Sir,
I too am a physicist from a big university.
You are promoting several misconceptions, purposefully leaving out facts and skewing the facts in your article. You no doubt love Hashem, but you are butchering science.
First, I will start at the end. The random probability of a bacteria forming is indeed very small. But the fallacy of your argument is to neglect how very big the universe is. There is indeed only a ridiculously small chance of a replicator starting randomly on any given planet. There are many, many planets. We happen to live on one where it happened. Your implication is to cast doubt, but you have committed Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy with your statistics. The Texas Sharpshooter blows holes in the side of a barn and then draws a bulls-eye around his holes. The point is you can not just look at the data you want to see. You excluded the rest of the universe. You've had your vast number of tries.

As to your discussion of the genome: You can not look at the Human Genome as
something seperate from the rest of the evolutionary tree. Yes the odds of that happening randomly are impossibly small even by universal standards, but humans did not show up randomly. The genetic record and the fossil record show this to be the case. There were those pesky 3,000,000,0000 or so years of evolution and selective processes happening.

Your article fails to mention complete symbiosis. Once two organisms merge, you have vastly increased both your comlexity and your chance of mutation. The jump from procaryote to eucaryote should not be overlooked - and it is much more important then the Cambrian explosion.

Your article fails to mention the robustness of more simple life forms. Viral strains and bacteria go through radical mutations in mere generations. Many radical shifts, that would destroy more complex forms in terms of % genome altered, simply do not kill daughter strains. In fact, that is why so many strains of bacteria have been able to become antibiotic resistant in a mere 50 years.

Your article fails to mention the many different ways that mutation can arise.
It is not just some random flip caused by radiation - though that mechanism
does exist. There is sexual selection, infection by retrovirus and transcription error to name a few.

As to only certain phyla work... that should not be surprising. Biology is
constrained by physics. If for example an organism of a certain mass, and a
certain energy budget wants to fly, there are only so many wing shapes that
work. There are only so many ways to build joints or to attach contractile
fibers to bend them. On an even more basic level, bilateral symmetry is something you should expect as a lowest energy budget solution to making robust forms in a three dimensional space.

What do you consider too random to have happened given all of this? Is it not true that after a certain threshold of comlexity is reached, the chance for radical mutation being viable dramatically decreases? So what is the big deal about not seeing more radical mutations in more complex species? You wave around big words and ask people to connect dots that are not there.

As to the nature of Hashem; He made the universe and He hid His handiwork. The Torah teaches us He did the deed. It does *not* teach us that He made the way He did it obvious. You do not need to rework science to resolve a conflict that does not exist. I mean really simply, Hashem knows the future and all of the initial conditions. He could have set up a totally random process (as appears to us, and this point is deeply related to how we have free will if He knows the future) and let it play out. But since we are talking about infinite knowledge outside of time, He knew how it would turn out - according to the way
He wanted.

Now, as to my largest complaint, from one scientist to another. This article is clearly written to be interpreted by those ignorant of science as presenting a debate that does not exist in the legitimate community. You even use the term evolutionist, as if any serious scientist isn't. Further, you encourage yahoo(in the Swift sense of yahoo) responses like the one from poor confused Alfred, who somehow manage to get through medical school without learning biology. You do this as "an M.I.T. trained scientist." You have done a disservice to both science and Torah. The real world is complicated. Hashem makes us work to figure out His mysteries. Get over it and stop looking for simple answers. More importantly, stop encouraging the ignorant to remain ignorant.

The Author Responds:

First of all, there are no data that support the popular fallacy that there are many potentially life-supporting planets. As I stated in my book Genssis & the Big Bang, planet formation is common in the universe. Our sun produced nine. But all the planets found to date orbit their individual stars in locations that obviate the possibility of life-supporting planets being part of those stellar systems. As Fermi is quoted as saying, if life is so likely in our universe, where are they?

There are not those pesky 3,000,000,000 years of evolution for life to get going. The oldest rocks that can bear fossils already have fossils of fully formed microbial life, including fossils of microbes in the process of mitosis, cell division. That is, nature learned the trick of
reproduction in a geological blink of the eye, at the maximum several tens of millions of years. Rocks and water and a few simple molecules learned
that trick in a flash. Clever but then why would life have wanted to reproduce. Was it lonely?? Or more likely it was purpose driven from the
outset for indeed reproduction is purpose driven. I deliberately write life wanted to reproduce because what could have been driving force behind the first form (singular not plural) of life inventing reproduction. And the first form of life had to have that power or when it ceased, life would have to start de novo.

And statistics are right in order here. Nature tried other combinations of amino acids as proteins and they failed. That is, those
others did not produce viable life. So indeed we can ask how did nature choose from among the vast biological wasteland the tiny fraction that is
viable? As does Simon Conway Morris ask in Life's Solutions (Cambridge U Press, 2003) and Noble laureate biochemist deDuve in his several books. and my guess is more attuned to the amazing quality of nature's solutions than either
Joe Harris or G.L.Schroeder. That is why I rely on his brains and not mine.

Life developed from the simple to the complex. Genesis One states this clearly. How it did so is not obvious. But all this discussion pales to
insignificance when we realize that the question is not so much how a microbe became alive. The fundamental question is how did the energy of the
big bang, the super powerful light beams of the big bang creation become alive, learn to feel joy, love, and ultimately wonder about creation.

(5)
Michael,
November 27, 2005 12:00 AM

But the gravity-ists are still sure that gravity is true, and the relativists are still sure that relativity is true. Aren't they evil?

The fact is, while evolution certainly has problems, it is the best theory we have right now. Sure, we can say G-d did it, but science is about observable, quantitative evidence, but to date, no one has ever observed G-d and gathered such quantitative evidence.

Besides, if we just say G-d did it, we won't have a drive to learn more. Suppose we just said that we fall to Earth because G-d pulls us down. If we kept that belief, we never would have looked for gravity. If we use G-d as a cop out for everything, we will never grow or learn more. Is that what G-d wants us to do?

G-d governs the universe through certain laws. Why did He make the laws the way He did? I don't know. But the laws are there for us to discover, if only we have the faith to accept the uncomfortable idea that some things operate by set and fixed laws, apparently independently of G-d.

G-d created the universe with these laws, and by discovering how the laws work, we are learning more about Him.

(4)
Rachel,
November 27, 2005 12:00 AM

Intelligent Design Controversy

I wish the proponents of mentioning intelligent design would consult with Dr. Schroeder. They have been getting bad press in Pennsylvania. They are, unfortunately, coming across as just some religious Christians who wish to interject their religious beliefs into science class - at least that is how the media report it. I wish I couild see Dr. Schroeder get interviewed by Fox News, CNN, or one of the big news outlets and see how they would deal with it.

Dr. Schroeder is absolutely correct when he says it is hard for peopel to give up their entrenched way of thinking, even when contradicted by the facts. Scientists have to deal with observed facts, not wishful thinking.
Now, if only I could understand the particulars of what Dr. Schroeder says!

(3)
Chris Idzerda,
November 27, 2005 12:00 AM

Even the improbable can occur in the formation of life

While I tend to agree with the author in that a touch of the Divine was required for life to start. But then working with statistics on a day to day basis, I also know that unlikely event occur based on small changes in the system. So what looks like the luckiest lottery system around couuld just be a function of conditions in the Cambrian period which have not reoccured nor can we know what those conditions were. It could just be that the fossil record is a result of the divine plan driven lottery system for life: mostly losers!

(2)
Anonymous,
November 27, 2005 12:00 AM

Evolution and religion can coexist

I have a Ph.D. and study evolution, and I am also a religious Jew. There is nothing incompatible with having a view that incorporates both perspectives, and one of the most interesting talks I saw during grad school (at Johns Hopkins University) was by an Orthodox Jewish professor who discussed how he reconciled the two truths… the truth of the Bible as written, and the truth of biological evolution. I have personally worked with many religious scientists, including Jews and non-Jews, and can say from experience that many scientists hold religious views that they incorporate with their scientific views. Evolution is the unifying theory of all biological sciences, and is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence that has not yet been falsified. Remember, usage in the scientific method of the term “theory” is very different from the way we normally think of it. We have G-d given powers of intellect and reason (whether they evolved with us, or were given at a special point along the way), and we deny these gifts by burying our heads in the sand and not using them to learn about the world around us and where we came from.

(1)
Alfred T Cox, M D,
November 27, 2005 12:00 AM

Dr Schroeder's Rationality vs Randomness

The evolutionists are still cocksure that their theory is indeed fact, as shown by a recent National Geographic article on Africa, on the origin of man.

This year during Chanukah I will be on a wilderness survival trip, and it will be very difficult to properly celebrate the holiday. I certainty won't be able to bring along a Menorah.

So if I am going to celebrate only one day of Chanukah, which is the most significant?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

If a person can only celebrate one day of Chanukah, he should celebrate the first day.

This is similar to a case where a person is in prison, and the authorities agree to permit him to go to synagogue one day. The law is that he should go at the first opportunity, and not wait for a more important day like the High Holidays.

The reason is because one should not allow the opportunity of a mitzvah to pass. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that circumstances will later change and allow for additional observance. Therefore, we do not let the first chance pass. (Sources: Code of Jewish Law OC 90, Mishnah Berurah 28.)

As an important aside, Chanukah candles must be lit in (or at the entrance to) a home rather than out of doors. Thus, you should not light in actual "wilderness," but only after you've pitched your tent for the night.

There may be another reason why the first night is the one to focus on. Chanukah is celebrated for eight days to commemorate the one-day supply of oil that miraculously burned for eight days. But if you think about it, since there was enough oil to burn naturally for one night, nothing miraculous happened on that first night! So why shouldn't Chanukah be just seven days?!

There are many wonderful answers given to this question, highlighting the special aspect of the first day. Here are a few:

1) True, the miracle of the oil did not begin until the second day, and lasted for only seven days. But the Sages designated the first day of Chanukah in commemoration of the miraculous military victory.

2) Having returned to the Temple and found it in shambles, the Jews had no logical reason to think they would find any pure oil. The fact that the Maccabees didn't give up hope, and then actually found any pure oil at all, is in itself a miracle.

3) The Sages chose Chanukah, a festival that revolves around oil's ability to burn, as the time to teach the fundamental truth that even so-called "natural" events take place only because God wants them to.

The Talmudic Sage Rabbi Chanina Ben Dosa expressed this truth in explaining a miracle that occurred in his own home. Once, his daughter realized that she had lit the Shabbos candles with vinegar instead of oil. Rabbi Chanina calmed her, saying, "Why are you concerned! The One Who commanded oil to burn, can also command vinegar to burn!" The Talmud goes on to say that those Shabbos lights burned bright for many hours (Taanit 25a).

To drive this truth home, the Sages decreed that Chanukah be observed for eight days: The last seven to commemorate the miracle of the Menorah, and the first to remind us that even the “normal” burning of oil is only in obedience to God's wish.

In closing, I'm not sure what's stopping you from celebrating more than one day? At a minimum, you can light one candle sometime during the evening, and that fulfills the mitzvah of Chanukah - no “official Menorah” necessary. With so much joy to be had, why limit yourself to one night only?!

In 165 BCE, the Maccabees defeated the Greek army and rededicated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Finding only one jar of pure oil, they lit the Menorah, which miraculously burned for eight days. Also on this day -- 1,100 years earlier -- Moses and the Jewish people completed construction of the Tabernacle, the portable sanctuary that accompanied them during 40 years of wandering in the desert. The Tabernacle was not dedicated, however, for another three months; tradition says that the day of Kislev 25 was then "compensated" centuries later -- when the miracle of Chanukah occurred and the Temple was rededicated. Today, Jews around the world light a Chanukah menorah, to commemorate the miracle of the oil, and its message that continues to illuminate our lives today.

A person who utilizes suffering to arouse himself in spiritual matters will find consolation. He will recognize that even though the suffering was difficult for him, it nevertheless helped him for eternity.

When you see yourself growing spiritually through your suffering, you will even be able to feel joy because of that suffering.

They established these eight days of Chanukah to give thanks and praise to Your great Name(Siddur).

Jewish history is replete with miracles that transcend the miracle of the Menorah. Why is the latter so prominently celebrated while the others are relegated to relative obscurity?

Perhaps the reason is that most other miracles were Divinely initiated; i.e. God intervened to suspend the laws of nature in order to save His people from calamity.

The miracle of the Menorah was something different. Having defeated the Seleucid Greek invaders, the triumphant Jews entered the Sanctuary. There they found that they could light the Menorah for only one day, due to a lack of undefiled oil. Further, they had no chance of replenishing the supply for eight days. They did light the Menorah anyway, reasoning that it was best to do what was within their ability to do and to postpone worrying about the next day until such worry was appropriate. This decision elicited a Divine response and the Menorah stayed lit for that day and for seven more.

This miracle was thus initiated by the Jews themselves, and the incident was set down as a teaching for all future generations: concentrate your efforts on what you can do, and do it! Leave the rest to God.

While even our best and most sincere efforts do not necessarily bring about miracles, the teaching is nevertheless valid. Even the likelihood of failure in the future should not discourage us from any constructive action that we can take now.

Today I shall...

focus my attention on what it is that I can do now, and do it to the best of my ability.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...